Loading
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
14 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Packaging, Cargo And Shipping, Failure Analysis
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Packaging expert witnesses help evaluate product damage disputes by examining packaging design, physical damage patterns, shipping records, handling conditions, and relevant testing standards. This article explains how experts assess competing failure mechanisms, preserve and interpret evidence, apply ASTM and ISTA procedures, and address carrier-liability, contractual, and Rule 702 issues that may arise in packaging-related litigation.
Packaging failure can result in damaged products, disputed shipping claims, and litigation involving manufacturers, distributors, warehouses, and transportation companies. When goods arrive broken, crushed, contaminated, or otherwise compromised, a dispute may center on whether packaging deficiencies, handling conditions, product characteristics, or environmental factors contributed to the damage.
This guide explains when qualified packaging experts may assist in product damage disputes and how physical evidence, shipping records, and testing standards can help evaluate competing causes of damage.
Packaging failure occurs when a packaging system does not perform its intended protective, containment, or preservation function. Whether that failure reflects a design deficiency, manufacturing problem, improper assembly, or excessive external exposure depends on the circumstances.
Common packaging failure mechanisms include:
Insufficient cushioning: Inadequate protective materials may expose fragile products to damaging impacts or vibration.
Container compression or collapse: Boxes, crates, or other containers may deform under stacking loads or excessive external pressure.
Closure and seal failures: Defective closures, insufficient fastening, or improper sealing may allow leakage, contamination, or loss of contents.
Moisture exposure: Water intrusion or inadequate moisture protection may affect packaging materials or damage moisture-sensitive products.
Load instability: Improper palletization, inadequate wrapping, or insufficient internal restraint may allow products to shift during transportation.
Material or assembly deficiencies: Packaging components that differ from required specifications may provide inadequate protection.
Damage to a product or its packaging does not necessarily mean the packaging was defective. Transportation incidents, improper handling, storage conditions, and preexisting product problems may also explain the observed damage.
A central technical question in a packaging-related dispute is whether the packaging system was suited to the intended distribution environment and whether any deficiency contributed to the loss.
Damage Analysis
Materials Handling
Materials Testing
Product Testing
Vibration Testing
Manufacturing Supply Chain Logistics
Carrier
Packaging failure can result in damaged products, disputed shipping claims, and litigation involving manufacturers, distributors, warehouses, and transportation companies. When goods arrive broken, crushed, contaminated, or otherwise compromised, a dispute may center on whether packaging deficiencies, handling conditions, product characteristics, or environmental factors contributed to the damage.
This guide explains when qualified packaging experts may assist in product damage disputes and how physical evidence, shipping records, and testing standards can help evaluate competing causes of damage.
Packaging failure occurs when a packaging system does not perform its intended protective, containment, or preservation function. Whether that failure reflects a design deficiency, manufacturing problem, improper assembly, or excessive external exposure depends on the circumstances.
Common packaging failure mechanisms include:
Insufficient cushioning: Inadequate protective materials may expose fragile products to damaging impacts or vibration.
Container compression or collapse: Boxes, crates, or other containers may deform under stacking loads or excessive external pressure.
Closure and seal failures: Defective closures, insufficient fastening, or improper sealing may allow leakage, contamination, or loss of contents.
Moisture exposure: Water intrusion or inadequate moisture protection may affect packaging materials or damage moisture-sensitive products.
Load instability: Improper palletization, inadequate wrapping, or insufficient internal restraint may allow products to shift during transportation.
Material or assembly deficiencies: Packaging components that differ from required specifications may provide inadequate protection.
Damage to a product or its packaging does not necessarily mean the packaging was defective. Transportation incidents, improper handling, storage conditions, and preexisting product problems may also explain the observed damage.
A central technical question in a packaging-related dispute is whether the packaging system was suited to the intended distribution environment and whether any deficiency contributed to the loss.
Packaging experts may help evaluate disputes involving inadequate packaging, transportation conditions, or handling practices when records or visual inspections alone may not resolve the technical questions.
Packaging design disputes may involve allegations that a container, cushioning system, or protective material was unsuitable for a product's weight, fragility, dimensions, or expected distribution conditions.
A packaging expert may evaluate whether the design accounted for reasonably anticipated impacts, vibration, compression, and environmental exposure. Even a suitable design may perform differently if materials are substituted, protective components are omitted, or assembly instructions are not followed.
In shipping damage claims, shippers, carriers, distributors, and insurers may disagree about when and how goods were damaged.
For example, a carrier may contend that inadequate cushioning caused a product to break during ordinary transportation. The shipper may instead allege that excessive impacts, improper stacking, or mishandling caused the damage.
A packaging expert may compare the product's damage pattern, packaging condition, and available transportation evidence to assess these competing explanations.
Packaging damage can also occur during storage, loading, unloading, and internal inventory movement.
Disputed conditions may include excessive stacking loads, unstable pallets, inappropriate storage environments, or improper equipment use.
When several facilities handled the goods, technical analysis may help narrow the possible damage mechanisms. Establishing exactly when damage occurred may still require additional operational or documentary evidence.
Preserving damaged products and their packaging can be important when litigation is possible. Discarding packaging, repairing products, or repackaging goods before documenting their condition may limit the investigation.
Attorneys and claims professionals should consider preserving:
Original shipping containers, cushioning, inserts, closures, and protective materials.
Damaged products in their received condition.
Photographs of the package and product taken before substantial handling or alteration.
Shipping labels, tracking information, delivery receipts, and inspection notes.
Packaging specifications and relevant testing documentation.
Comparable undamaged packaging and product samples, when available.
When litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties may have a duty to preserve relevant physical evidence, including damaged products and packaging. Before conducting destructive testing or materially altering evidence, counsel should evaluate applicable preservation obligations and whether opposing parties should receive notice or an opportunity to inspect. In Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001), the Fourth Circuit recognized that preservation duties may arise before litigation begins when a party reasonably should know that evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation. Failure to preserve material evidence may result in sanctions, depending on the applicable law and circumstances.
Early coordination with a qualified packaging expert may help identify which materials and records are most important to preserve.
A packaging expert may assess possible failure mechanisms by examining the product and packaging, reviewing distribution records, and evaluating relevant testing.
An expert may inspect:
Crushing, punctures, tears, or deformation in exterior containers.
Displaced cushioning, damaged inserts, or inadequate internal restraints.
Failed adhesives, closures, seals, or fastening components.
Impact marks, fractures, scratches, or deformation affecting the product.
Moisture intrusion, corrosion, or deterioration of packaging materials.
Differences between the damaged packaging and its intended specifications.
Where available, undamaged samples from the same production or packaging system may provide useful comparisons.
Physical damage patterns can support an engineering explanation, but they do not always identify the precise event, location, or person responsible for the damage.
Shipping and manufacturing records may show how the goods were prepared and provide information about documented events or conditions during distribution.
Relevant materials may include:
Packaging specifications, engineering drawings, and material records.
Assembly instructions and quality-control documentation.
Pre-shipment photographs and inspection reports.
Bills of lading, delivery receipts, and damage reports.
Carrier handling records and available impact-monitoring data.
Environmental records concerning temperature, humidity, or storage conditions.
Previous packaging test reports and documented damage complaints.
By comparing these records, an expert may evaluate whether the packaging matched its documented design or specifications and whether the evidence supports an alleged transportation event.
A packaging investigation should consider alternative explanations, including preexisting product damage, improper assembly, excessive transportation forces, inadequate storage conditions, or handling after delivery.
If a component is fractured but the shipping container is undamaged, an expert may examine internal movement, product fragility, and possible preexisting damage before attributing the loss to improper handling.
An expert may use physical observations, engineering principles, records, and representative testing to assess these possibilities. When the evidence is insufficient, the expert should acknowledge that limitation rather than assign responsibility.
Packaging testing evaluates how products and packaging systems respond to specified mechanical or environmental conditions, using methods selected for the product and distribution environment.
ASTM International publishes standards addressing shipping containers, packaging components, and distribution-related testing.
Relevant standards include:
ASTM D4169, Standard Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems: Provides a framework for evaluating shipping units through laboratory testing representing anticipated distribution hazards.
ASTM D7386: Addresses laboratory performance testing of packages weighing no more than 150 pounds and intended for single-parcel delivery systems.
ASTM D4332-22, Standard Practice for Conditioning Containers, Packages, or Packaging Components for Testing: Describes procedures for conditioning packaging materials and components under specified atmospheric conditions for testing.
Experts may use these standards to evaluate packaging performance, considering each standard's scope, the shipment's characteristics, and the purpose of the investigation.
The International Safe Transit Association (ISTA) develops procedures for testing how packaged products respond to distribution hazards.
ISTA Procedure 3A addresses packaged products weighing 150 pounds or less that move through parcel delivery systems, while Procedure 3B addresses less-than-truckload distribution.
Depending on the applicable procedure, testing may involve vibration, impacts, compression, or atmospheric conditioning.
An expert may examine whether the selected ISTA procedure adequately represents the distribution system involved and whether testing followed the applicable edition's requirements. Evaluating procedural compliance may require reviewing the complete testing instructions, including prescribed test sequences, conditions, and reporting requirements, because publicly available summaries do not necessarily contain the information needed to assess compliance with the full procedure.
Packaging tests evaluate performance under defined conditions, not every possible shipping event.
Passing a laboratory test does not establish that packaging could withstand all transportation hazards. Likewise, failing a test does not necessarily mean that the same failure mechanism caused the damage involved in litigation.
Test results should be interpreted alongside physical evidence, actual shipment conditions, and the packaging system's intended performance requirements.
ASTM and ISTA procedures are not universally mandatory legal standards. Their significance may depend on applicable regulations, contractual requirements, industry practices, or the particular questions in dispute. FDA recognition of certain ASTM and ISTA standards for medical-device applications does not, by itself, make those standards mandatory for packaging in other industries.
Packaging damage litigation may involve federal transportation law, contractual obligations, warranty disputes, or allegations concerning packaging design and handling practices. The applicable legal framework depends on the shipment, parties, claims, and jurisdiction.
For covered motor-carrier and freight-forwarder transportation, the Carmack Amendment's liability provisions in 49 U.S.C. § 14706 govern certain cargo-loss and damage claims. Separate provisions for covered rail-carrier transportation appear in 49 U.S.C. § 11706.
Section 14706 provides for carrier liability for actual loss or injury to property within its scope, subject to applicable limitations and defenses.
In Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964), the Supreme Court of the United States explained the traditional federal carrier-liability framework.
Under that framework, a shipper makes an initial showing, known as a prima facie case, by establishing three elements: delivery to the carrier in good condition, arrival in damaged condition, and the amount of the resulting loss.
The burden then shifts to the carrier to demonstrate both that it was free from negligence and that the damage resulted from a recognized excepted cause, such as an act of the shipper or the inherent nature of the goods.
Although Elmore & Stahl concerned rail transportation under an earlier statutory provision, the traditional framework it describes remains relevant to covered Carmack Amendment claims, including motor-carrier claims.
Packaging evidence may become important when a carrier attributes the loss to inadequate preparation or packaging by the shipper.
The Carmack Amendment does not govern every shipment. Certain international or multimodal transportation arrangements may be subject to different requirements, depending on the circumstances and governing law.
Packaging disputes may also involve contractual specifications, supplier obligations, shipping arrangements, and product warranties.
A packaging expert may evaluate whether the materials, design, or assembly matched documented requirements and whether identified differences affected protective performance.
Technical findings may be relevant to claims against manufacturers, suppliers, or other responsible parties. Whether those findings establish a breach of contract, warranty violation, or another legal claim depends on the governing law and applicable agreement.
When cargo loss or damage involves a carrier covered by the Carmack Amendment, federal preemption may limit separate state-law remedies. In Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2003), the Fifth Circuit held that the Carmack Amendment completely preempted the plaintiff's state-law claims for loss or damage to goods transported interstate by a common carrier, permitting removal to federal court in that case.
Removal of Carmack Amendment claims remains subject to applicable jurisdictional and procedural requirements. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(b), an action filed in state court against a carrier to recover damages for shipment delay, loss, or injury arising under 49 U.S.C. § 11706 or § 14706 cannot be removed to federal court unless the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs. Separately, 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) provides that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions brought under these Carmack provisions only when the amount in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs. Satisfying the applicable monetary threshold does not eliminate other requirements for federal jurisdiction or removal.
The scope of preemption depends on the claims and circumstances involved and should not be extended automatically to disputes involving separate obligations of packaging manufacturers, suppliers, or other parties.
In federal litigation, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony.
The party offering the expert testimony must show, more likely than not, that it satisfies Rule 702's requirements for helpfulness, sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the case.
For packaging experts, relevant considerations may include whether:
The expert has appropriate qualifications for the disputed packaging issue.
The investigation relies on sufficient physical or documentary evidence.
Testing methods are suitable for the product and distribution conditions.
Alternative explanations have been adequately evaluated.
The conclusions remain within the limits of the supporting evidence.
A packaging expert may explain package performance and potential damage mechanisms, but those findings alone do not establish legal responsibility, which depends on applicable law and case-specific evidence.
Can a product be damaged even when the exterior shipping container appears intact?
Yes. An exterior shipping container that appears intact does not necessarily mean the product inside is undamaged. The product and internal packaging should be examined for movement, cushioning problems, and other possible causes.
Does passing an ASTM or ISTA packaging test establish that the packaging was adequate?
Not necessarily. A passing result shows that the tested packaging configuration met specified acceptance criteria, but an expert must assess whether those test conditions represent the shipment in dispute.
Can a packaging expert identify which company caused the product damage?
A packaging expert may evaluate whether physical evidence supports a packaging deficiency, handling event, or other technical cause. Determining which company is legally responsible requires consideration of contractual obligations, applicable law, and additional evidence.
What happens if the original damaged packaging is no longer available?
An expert may still review photographs, shipping records, design specifications, inspection reports, and comparable packaging samples. However, missing physical evidence can limit the reliability or specificity of conclusions.
What qualifications are relevant when selecting a packaging expert witness?
Relevant qualifications may include packaging engineering experience, familiarity with packaging materials, knowledge of distribution environments, and experience applying appropriate test methods. The expert's specific technical background should match the disputed failure mechanism and product involved.
Packaging experts may help evaluate disputes involving inadequate packaging, transportation conditions, or handling practices when records or visual inspections alone may not resolve the technical questions.
Packaging design disputes may involve allegations that a container, cushioning system, or protective material was unsuitable for a product's weight, fragility, dimensions, or expected distribution conditions.
A packaging expert may evaluate whether the design accounted for reasonably anticipated impacts, vibration, compression, and environmental exposure. Even a suitable design may perform differently if materials are substituted, protective components are omitted, or assembly instructions are not followed.
In shipping damage claims, shippers, carriers, distributors, and insurers may disagree about when and how goods were damaged.
For example, a carrier may contend that inadequate cushioning caused a product to break during ordinary transportation. The shipper may instead allege that excessive impacts, improper stacking, or mishandling caused the damage.
A packaging expert may compare the product's damage pattern, packaging condition, and available transportation evidence to assess these competing explanations.
Packaging damage can also occur during storage, loading, unloading, and internal inventory movement.
Disputed conditions may include excessive stacking loads, unstable pallets, inappropriate storage environments, or improper equipment use.
When several facilities handled the goods, technical analysis may help narrow the possible damage mechanisms. Establishing exactly when damage occurred may still require additional operational or documentary evidence.
Preserving damaged products and their packaging can be important when litigation is possible. Discarding packaging, repairing products, or repackaging goods before documenting their condition may limit the investigation.
Attorneys and claims professionals should consider preserving:
Original shipping containers, cushioning, inserts, closures, and protective materials.
Damaged products in their received condition.
Photographs of the package and product taken before substantial handling or alteration.
Shipping labels, tracking information, delivery receipts, and inspection notes.
Packaging specifications and relevant testing documentation.
Comparable undamaged packaging and product samples, when available.
When litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties may have a duty to preserve relevant physical evidence, including damaged products and packaging. Before conducting destructive testing or materially altering evidence, counsel should evaluate applicable preservation obligations and whether opposing parties should receive notice or an opportunity to inspect. In Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001), the Fourth Circuit recognized that preservation duties may arise before litigation begins when a party reasonably should know that evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation. Failure to preserve material evidence may result in sanctions, depending on the applicable law and circumstances.
Early coordination with a qualified packaging expert may help identify which materials and records are most important to preserve.
A packaging expert may assess possible failure mechanisms by examining the product and packaging, reviewing distribution records, and evaluating relevant testing.
An expert may inspect:
Crushing, punctures, tears, or deformation in exterior containers.
Displaced cushioning, damaged inserts, or inadequate internal restraints.
Failed adhesives, closures, seals, or fastening components.
Impact marks, fractures, scratches, or deformation affecting the product.
Moisture intrusion, corrosion, or deterioration of packaging materials.
Differences between the damaged packaging and its intended specifications.
Where available, undamaged samples from the same production or packaging system may provide useful comparisons.
Physical damage patterns can support an engineering explanation, but they do not always identify the precise event, location, or person responsible for the damage.
Shipping and manufacturing records may show how the goods were prepared and provide information about documented events or conditions during distribution.
Relevant materials may include:
Packaging specifications, engineering drawings, and material records.
Assembly instructions and quality-control documentation.
Pre-shipment photographs and inspection reports.
Bills of lading, delivery receipts, and damage reports.
Carrier handling records and available impact-monitoring data.
Environmental records concerning temperature, humidity, or storage conditions.
Previous packaging test reports and documented damage complaints.
By comparing these records, an expert may evaluate whether the packaging matched its documented design or specifications and whether the evidence supports an alleged transportation event.
A packaging investigation should consider alternative explanations, including preexisting product damage, improper assembly, excessive transportation forces, inadequate storage conditions, or handling after delivery.
If a component is fractured but the shipping container is undamaged, an expert may examine internal movement, product fragility, and possible preexisting damage before attributing the loss to improper handling.
An expert may use physical observations, engineering principles, records, and representative testing to assess these possibilities. When the evidence is insufficient, the expert should acknowledge that limitation rather than assign responsibility.
Packaging testing evaluates how products and packaging systems respond to specified mechanical or environmental conditions, using methods selected for the product and distribution environment.
ASTM International publishes standards addressing shipping containers, packaging components, and distribution-related testing.
Relevant standards include:
ASTM D4169, Standard Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems: Provides a framework for evaluating shipping units through laboratory testing representing anticipated distribution hazards.
ASTM D7386: Addresses laboratory performance testing of packages weighing no more than 150 pounds and intended for single-parcel delivery systems.
ASTM D4332-22, Standard Practice for Conditioning Containers, Packages, or Packaging Components for Testing: Describes procedures for conditioning packaging materials and components under specified atmospheric conditions for testing.
Experts may use these standards to evaluate packaging performance, considering each standard's scope, the shipment's characteristics, and the purpose of the investigation.
The International Safe Transit Association (ISTA) develops procedures for testing how packaged products respond to distribution hazards.
ISTA Procedure 3A addresses packaged products weighing 150 pounds or less that move through parcel delivery systems, while Procedure 3B addresses less-than-truckload distribution.
Depending on the applicable procedure, testing may involve vibration, impacts, compression, or atmospheric conditioning.
An expert may examine whether the selected ISTA procedure adequately represents the distribution system involved and whether testing followed the applicable edition's requirements. Evaluating procedural compliance may require reviewing the complete testing instructions, including prescribed test sequences, conditions, and reporting requirements, because publicly available summaries do not necessarily contain the information needed to assess compliance with the full procedure.
Packaging tests evaluate performance under defined conditions, not every possible shipping event.
Passing a laboratory test does not establish that packaging could withstand all transportation hazards. Likewise, failing a test does not necessarily mean that the same failure mechanism caused the damage involved in litigation.
Test results should be interpreted alongside physical evidence, actual shipment conditions, and the packaging system's intended performance requirements.
ASTM and ISTA procedures are not universally mandatory legal standards. Their significance may depend on applicable regulations, contractual requirements, industry practices, or the particular questions in dispute. FDA recognition of certain ASTM and ISTA standards for medical-device applications does not, by itself, make those standards mandatory for packaging in other industries.
Packaging damage litigation may involve federal transportation law, contractual obligations, warranty disputes, or allegations concerning packaging design and handling practices. The applicable legal framework depends on the shipment, parties, claims, and jurisdiction.
For covered motor-carrier and freight-forwarder transportation, the Carmack Amendment's liability provisions in 49 U.S.C. § 14706 govern certain cargo-loss and damage claims. Separate provisions for covered rail-carrier transportation appear in 49 U.S.C. § 11706.
Section 14706 provides for carrier liability for actual loss or injury to property within its scope, subject to applicable limitations and defenses.
In Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134 (1964), the Supreme Court of the United States explained the traditional federal carrier-liability framework.
Under that framework, a shipper makes an initial showing, known as a prima facie case, by establishing three elements: delivery to the carrier in good condition, arrival in damaged condition, and the amount of the resulting loss.
The burden then shifts to the carrier to demonstrate both that it was free from negligence and that the damage resulted from a recognized excepted cause, such as an act of the shipper or the inherent nature of the goods.
Although Elmore & Stahl concerned rail transportation under an earlier statutory provision, the traditional framework it describes remains relevant to covered Carmack Amendment claims, including motor-carrier claims.
Packaging evidence may become important when a carrier attributes the loss to inadequate preparation or packaging by the shipper.
The Carmack Amendment does not govern every shipment. Certain international or multimodal transportation arrangements may be subject to different requirements, depending on the circumstances and governing law.
Packaging disputes may also involve contractual specifications, supplier obligations, shipping arrangements, and product warranties.
A packaging expert may evaluate whether the materials, design, or assembly matched documented requirements and whether identified differences affected protective performance.
Technical findings may be relevant to claims against manufacturers, suppliers, or other responsible parties. Whether those findings establish a breach of contract, warranty violation, or another legal claim depends on the governing law and applicable agreement.
When cargo loss or damage involves a carrier covered by the Carmack Amendment, federal preemption may limit separate state-law remedies. In Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines, 343 F.3d 769 (5th Cir. 2003), the Fifth Circuit held that the Carmack Amendment completely preempted the plaintiff's state-law claims for loss or damage to goods transported interstate by a common carrier, permitting removal to federal court in that case.
Removal of Carmack Amendment claims remains subject to applicable jurisdictional and procedural requirements. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(b), an action filed in state court against a carrier to recover damages for shipment delay, loss, or injury arising under 49 U.S.C. § 11706 or § 14706 cannot be removed to federal court unless the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs. Separately, 28 U.S.C. § 1337(a) provides that federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions brought under these Carmack provisions only when the amount in controversy for each receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs. Satisfying the applicable monetary threshold does not eliminate other requirements for federal jurisdiction or removal.
The scope of preemption depends on the claims and circumstances involved and should not be extended automatically to disputes involving separate obligations of packaging manufacturers, suppliers, or other parties.
In federal litigation, Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony.
The party offering the expert testimony must show, more likely than not, that it satisfies Rule 702's requirements for helpfulness, sufficient facts or data, reliable principles and methods, and reliable application to the case.
For packaging experts, relevant considerations may include whether:
The expert has appropriate qualifications for the disputed packaging issue.
The investigation relies on sufficient physical or documentary evidence.
Testing methods are suitable for the product and distribution conditions.
Alternative explanations have been adequately evaluated.
The conclusions remain within the limits of the supporting evidence.
A packaging expert may explain package performance and potential damage mechanisms, but those findings alone do not establish legal responsibility, which depends on applicable law and case-specific evidence.
Can a product be damaged even when the exterior shipping container appears intact?
Yes. An exterior shipping container that appears intact does not necessarily mean the product inside is undamaged. The product and internal packaging should be examined for movement, cushioning problems, and other possible causes.
Does passing an ASTM or ISTA packaging test establish that the packaging was adequate?
Not necessarily. A passing result shows that the tested packaging configuration met specified acceptance criteria, but an expert must assess whether those test conditions represent the shipment in dispute.
Can a packaging expert identify which company caused the product damage?
A packaging expert may evaluate whether physical evidence supports a packaging deficiency, handling event, or other technical cause. Determining which company is legally responsible requires consideration of contractual obligations, applicable law, and additional evidence.
What happens if the original damaged packaging is no longer available?
An expert may still review photographs, shipping records, design specifications, inspection reports, and comparable packaging samples. However, missing physical evidence can limit the reliability or specificity of conclusions.
What qualifications are relevant when selecting a packaging expert witness?
Relevant qualifications may include packaging engineering experience, familiarity with packaging materials, knowledge of distribution environments, and experience applying appropriate test methods. The expert's specific technical background should match the disputed failure mechanism and product involved.
Damage Analysis
Materials Handling
Materials Testing
Product Testing
Vibration Testing
Manufacturing Supply Chain Logistics
Carrier
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise